This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH/Merge Request] Vtable Verification feature.
- From: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>
- To: Benjamin De Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Caroline Tice <cmtice at google dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Benjamin De Kosnik <b dot dekosnik at gmail dot com>, Bhaskar Janakiraman <bjanakiraman at google dot com>, Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 14:45:21 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH/Merge Request] Vtable Verification feature.
- References: <CABtf2+Q47X0Ld6byo8R96TTKuYPkOsKO7tADRRWVpFqHHTsfuw at mail dot gmail dot com> <20130801131950 dot 527bbf97 at oakwood> <CAD_=9DThid3P8ridA2OxP15L_KehaKzw=EGjSPwP=MT6vMAexg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CABtf2+TDrQObufSt4Zd46fjG6jH_XfuhRTeNJvsniP6BaCyEdg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CABtf2+Rn8Xn12xvWMx9FSBZ3EGaZQ77Qs-sh_z1XCxntsN9SVg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAD_=9DTNJuR-SrjKYAEHLoCYr2OZe8kboei9Xyc2Jug+x1=v9w at mail dot gmail dot com> <20130806143904 dot 3819d0f1 at oakwood>
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Benjamin De Kosnik <bkoz@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> > +# Filter out unsupported systems.
>> > +case "${target}" in
>> > + x86_64-*-linux* | i?86-*-linux*)
>> > + VTV_SUPPORTED=yes
>> > + ;;
>> > + powerpc*-*-linux*)
>> > + ;;
>> > + sparc*-*-linux*)
>> > + ;;
>> > + arm*-*-linux*)
>> > + ;;
>>
>> What about powerpc, sparc and arm? Why are they mentioned here if no
>> actual decision is made about support?
>
> This is more a practical consideration: it's the middle of summer
> break. Let's error on the side of caution for the moment, and get
> this in causing minimal disruption on a convenient platform that I can
> verify myself easily.
>
> On a practical note, the libsanitizer acceptance
> criteria was/is as above, seems sensible to do the same thing with
> libvtv.
>
> Once this is in trunk, let a million flowers bloom! There is no
> reason specific platform/target maintainers can't enable it at their
> leisure on a per-setup manner and when they can verify testresults
> easily.
Agreed. The comments I had have been already addressed by Caroline,
AFAICT. Once she has that, the patch can go in.
Diego.